GR L 9840; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9840; April 22, 1957
LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION, petitioner-defendant, vs. I. V. BINAMIRA, respondent-plaintiff.
FACTS
On August 10, 1951, six cases of films and photographic supplies were shipped from New York, consigned to respondent I. V. Binamira. The shipment arrived at the port of Cebu on September 23, 1951, and was discharged from the vessel by the Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc., hired by petitioner Lu Do & Lu Ym Corporation as agent of the carrier. The cargo, including the subject shipment, was received by the arrastre operator, Visayan Cebu Terminal Company, Inc., appointed by the Bureau of Customs. Checkers from both the stevedoring company and the arrastre operator noted the shipment was discharged in good order. On September 26, 1951, respondent took delivery from the arrastre operator and discovered signs of pilferage. A marine surveyor’s examination revealed missing items valued at P324.63. Respondent filed an action to recover the value of the missing shipment and damages. The Court of First Instance of Cebu ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay P216.84 with interest, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Is the carrier responsible for the loss of the goods, which occurred after the shipment was discharged from the ship and placed in the custody of the customs authorities (arrestre operator)?
RULING
No. The carrier is not responsible for the loss. While Articles 1734, 1735, and 1736 of the New Civil Code generally hold a common carrier liable for loss from receipt until delivery to the consignee, and presume negligence unless extraordinary diligence is proven, this liability applies only while the goods are in the carrier’s possession. The Bill of Lading governing the shipment contained valid stipulations limiting the carrier’s liability. Specifically, it provided that the carrier’s responsibility would cease altogether once the goods were taken into the custody of customs or other authorities, and that the carrier would not be liable for any loss occurring while the goods were not in its actual custody. Since the loss occurred after the goods were discharged in good order and delivered to the custody of the arrastre operator (customs authorities), and the limiting stipulations are not contrary to morals or public policy, the carrier’s liability had ceased. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed.